Shaq didn't look as bad as I thought he would. His timing was pretty good, and Roach gave him the typical big guy v small guy book of tricks. That said, he was really slow and gassed quickly, even over two minute rounds. Any decent- and I mean not good but decent- light heavy and above would KO him.

Size generally does matter, but only up to a certain point. The very best heavyweights today seem to range from 230 to 240 pounds. Too much more heavier and they seem to be not as good. I'm thinking it's due to worse hand and eye coordination and stamina. On the other hand, much lighter and you would need to have among the greatest speed and reflexes in heavyweight history to be included among the best. I predict that there will never be a sub 220 fighter that will dominate the division ever again.

Posted by PetethePrince
So you're using the Shaq vs Oscar reference to prove size matters? I'm not getting it...

I was actually making the argument mainly as an excuse to post the link. I thought the show was entertaining.

Still, I admit it made me think of how the heavyweights that weighed below 200 lbs. would really cope with the size difference if facing some of the large 235 lb+ fighters. I realize that the fight with Shaq and De la Hoya was done for entertainment purposes, and is not a valid comparison to small vs large heavyweights. Oneal and Oscar have a much more extreme difference in size than 40-60 lbs. Oneal is more than a foot taller, and literally weighed over twice as much as De la Hoya (325lbs vs 159). The show had to use a small fighter for the match to even be interesting, as any slightly larger fighter with that vast a experience gap would have stopped Shaq in well under 9 min.

A man that big, an athlete on top of that is certainly going to have an advantage over a relatively smaller performer like a welter/middleweight boxer, no matter how great he is. This is ridiculous, I don't watch carnival bull**** like this, and it emphasizes why the weight classes were devised for the sport of boxing. What if Sugar Ray Robinson was to get in the ring against Wilt Chamberlain, for instance, besides being a circus-type attraction, what would it have proven?

A man that big, an athlete on top of that is certainly going to have an advantage over a relatively smaller performer like a welter/middleweight boxer, no matter how great he is. This is ridiculous, I don't watch carnival bull**** like this, and it emphasizes why the weight classes were devised for the sport of boxing. What if Sugar Ray Robinson was to get in the ring against Wilt Chamberlain, for instance, besides being a circus-type attraction, what would it have proven?

That he could've lasted under amateur rules for a few rounds perhaps, but would've been destroyed under pro rules, 12 or 15 rounds.

Plus, how old is Oscar anyway? He hardly looked impressive vs a much smaller fighter in Pacquiao, half a year ago.

Location: "Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it."

Posts: 10,231
vCash: 428

Re: For Anyone that Doubts Size Matters

Quote:

Originally Posted by red cobra

A man that big, an athlete on top of that is certainly going to have an advantage over a relatively smaller performer like a welter/middleweight boxer, no matter how great he is. This is ridiculous, I don't watch carnival bull**** like this, and it emphasizes why the weight classes were devised for the sport of boxing. What if Sugar Ray Robinson was to get in the ring against Wilt Chamberlain, for instance, besides being a circus-type attraction, what would it have proven?